LyrArc Article Gist
A report released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows growing income inequality in 34 OECD countries. OECD Secretary General, Angel Gurria says: "The social contract is starting to unravel in many countries. This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that the greater inequality fosters greater social mobility. Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, income inequality will continue to rise." Countries with the largest ratios between incomes at the top and the bottom, are the United States, Turkey and Israel, roughly 14 to 1. Germany, Denmark and Sweden have ratios of 6 to 1, with their ratios up from the 1980's. Gaps in Chile and Mexico are at 25 to 1. The study covers the period from 1980 to 2008. Overall inequality went up by 25% in the U.S. from 1980. In 2008 the top ten percent in the U.S. earned $114,000, 15 times than incomes for the bottom 10%. The top 1% of Americans saw incomes go up from 1980 to 2008, increasing from 8 percent to 18 percent. The richest 1% having $1.3 million in after tax income, and the lowest 20% making $17,700. The trends have accentuated an increase at the highest end- the top 1% and top 10% of the people- and a sharp decrease for the bottom 20%, which can be grasped from the $17,700 and the $1.3 million, both at extreme ends. The study attributes the rise in inequality to a growing gap in wages for highly skilled workers as technology advances, a surge in foreign direct investment and a looser regulatory regime that reduces employee protections leading to wage premiums for financial jobs and smaller incomes for workers at the bottom. Income groups and professions and sectors that had the greatest influence in government were able during this period to get the greatest protection for incomes, and able also to maximize their incomes. Incomes in the financial sector increased dramatically in the last decade, as a result of deregulation leading to higher risk and speculative activities in the financial sector, leading to the financial crisis of 2008-2009. Financial crises further depress incomes at the lower end. Similiar income inequality trends can be seen for India and China. China has a Ginni coefficient of 0.5 according to researchers at Beijing Normal University, up from 0.3 three decades ago- a Ginni Coefficient above 0.4 is considered destabilizing. Another factor that played a part in these countries is corruption and lobbying by special interests for favored treatment of sectors or groups. Austerity measures taken in Europe and in the U.S. are likely to widen income gaps by depressing the lower end income groups, creating social unrest, especially in the absence of efforts to stimulate growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
Efforts to repair strained Saudi ties with a visit by U.S. president Obama in March 2014.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Venezuelan government provides gasoline to people in the country at a few cents a gallon- almost free. Even Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Kuwait which have way better financial balances and dollar reserves do not provide gasoline at such prices. The result is chronic shortages of basic parts and other imports because the government does not have enough dollar reserves for imports. Venezuela devalued its currency by 32% recently, making imports more expensive and pushing inflation up even higher to 28%. The problems it creates are excessive and wasteful use of gasoline, and free gasoline that then provides consumers money to pay for surging cost of everyday imported products. Nullifying any real benefits when shortages, inflation, dilapidated infrastructure and lack of development and jobs, are taken into account. The lack of capital to invest in the oil industry has led to declining production making the situation unsustainable. Yet neither party of Maduro or Capriles in the upcoming April 14, 2013 election, following the death of Chavez, supports ending this subsidy. Efforts to end the subsidy by president Carlos Andres Perez in 1986 led to riots and about hundred deaths in police response, and a coup by Chavez, then a military officer, a few years later. Under Chavez the subsidy was extended to the level at which gasoline is about 4 cents a gallon. Compare this with the price in neighboring Colombia at $4.72 a gallon, and Brazil at $5.40 per gallon. Consumption per capita in Venezuela is excessively high, about seven times per capita than neighboring Columbia. The investment in infrastucture is hobbled by lack of capital, the capital Caracas dilapidated, and no major infrastructure projects taken up by the government. It costs Venezuela 8.6% of GDP or $27 billion to pay for the excessively high subsidy, compared to 3.2% of GDP going to healthcare spending and 5.1% for education. In comparison Indonesia, another developing country, uses 2.5% of GDP or 21 billion for its subsidy for a population of over 200 million. It is not that a fuel subsidy is provided, but the entitlement to free gasoline that makes Venezuela the lone exception. There is a reason why prices in Brazil and China, large developing countries, price gasoline to motorists at over $4 a gallon- to discourage excessive and wasteful use, and release scarce capital for infrastructure development, building dollar reserves for imports of machinery and equipment, and other uses in industrializing economies. Compare Venezuela with Bolivia under the socialist government of Evo Morales. In 2010 Bolivia increased its price of gasoline by 80%. The price in 2013 is about $2.00 per gallon. Morales cushioned the increase by increasing salaries in the health and education sectors, armed forces and police by 20%, and increasing prices of locally produced wheat, corn and rice by 10%. Morales said he did this to reduce state subsidies of $380 million for $660 million in gasoline imports, of which $150 million was siphoned off by smuggling gasoline to neigboring countries. Incentives were provided to oil companies to produce gasoline in Bolivia to reduce imports. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
German perceptions of Mikhail Gorbachev are shown here in DW.com. He is revered in Germany because of Gorbachev's efforts to end Soviet rule in East German state called the GDR, leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Gorbachev supported German reunification but did not do this is in a way that ensured that ordinary Russians and citizens of the GDR could make the transition to democratic processes in a smooth way. He also failed to grasp that economic transition could be difficult and would require extensive aid and grants from the west, and that safeguards and protections for retired pensioners and vulnerable sections of society needed to be in place. The following is a reflection of the background in political government and economy of the events in Europe leading to the war in Ukraine.  As a result Gorbachev's instincts were right by first 1956 as a student, and then 1979 as government official about the need for democratic processes to realize the real potential of Russia, just as has happened in many countries that lacked these processes for change in government- Japan, Germany, South Korea, India, Brazil and many countries in Asia and Latin America. But not realizing that these countries made the transition with considerable American and British assistance. Even where there was no direct assistance indirectly the British setup the first limited Swaraj or free rule in India, with elections and elected assemblies in Indian states in the 1930's, following the pattern in Dominion states Australia and Canada. Mohandas Gandhi negotiated within these processes for rights of South African Indians and Colored people, gaining experience, including study of British law.  A son of poor farmers in the agricultural region of North Caucasus, in Stavropol, it is relevant today that his maternal grand parents were from Chernihiv in Ukraine. He came to power in 1980 after entering the Politburo that year. These were the waning years of Leonid Brezhnev, president of the Soviet Union who followed Nikita Khrushchev (1953- 1964). Khrushchev was from eastern Ukrainian region near Donetsk. Leonid Brezhnev was a protege of Krushchev since 1931, from Kamianske, Ukraine.   Gorbachev was influenced by Khrushchev's speech that denounced Stalin in 1956 in favor of a freer and more open society. Khrushchev, became first secretary of the Communist party in 1953 after the death of Stalin and set the pace of post war Soviet society from 1950 to 1964. He removed the fear of the dictatorship of the proleteriat working class, increasingly dictatorial under Lenin, and blatantly arbitrary under his successor to make Soviet Union a freer society.  Yet his tendency to make decisions on his own without consulting others, and the failure of agriculture in the Soviet Union including food shortages led to his replacement by his protege Brezhnev. Brezhnev's whole career was built under Krushchev in Ukraine, in the army in Ukraine, and as a political leader in the Soviet 18th Army that entered Prague in 1945 defeating the Nazis. Why is this relevant? Gorbachev was educated at Moscow State University when the Soviet Union was in the Sputnik era, and felt at the time that it could reach the 1950's standard of living in the US- very different from the earlier leaders. Yet he may have been too much of an optimist and not hands on in understanding the working of a modern economy as large as Russia and the interests of different groups of society that had to be be balanced and protected. His understanding of the US and of how the US and British economies had evolved was limited or nonexistent. The isolation of the Soviet period may have compounded this. The Russian state in the Soviet Union could not simply unwind the power of the state and its intervention and everything would come out right of its own accord.   Leonid Brezhnev, the Ukrainian Russian who succeeded Krushchev from 1964 to 1979 let the system of Soviet rule remain as it was, in the Great Stagnation, leading to lethargy, lack of innovation, and a weak economy with military expansion. Gorbachev tried to regenerate the system by opening it up, but failed to see that there was a risk that it could come apart quickly as it did in just 4 years after he became president in 1985. Only the centralized power of the state had kept the Russian state together from the Tsarist period through the Communist period. The risks of this Gorbachev failed to grasp. What if it happened too quickly without a safety net for the people who could not make the transition. What lawlessness and failure of the rule of law could happen. The US and Britain had evolved their democracies over centuries. Wars were fought in the US and Britain over rights and responsibilities of kings and parliaments. In the US Lincoln fought the civil war not just for emancipation but to ensure safeguards for free white men on the farms so that Labor did not get disabilities placed on them by Capital (entrenched forces of Capital of which the southern plantation economy was only one aspect.)  Japan and Germany were set up as democratic states through American power and constitutional frameworks with Marshall Plans or agreement to take in unlimited imports from Japan. This bad scenario happened in Russia because Gorbachev failed to set the conditions first and work patiently to achieve them including introducing limited  elections and parliamentary processes first in Russia.  Leaders such as Yeltsin who succeeded Gorbachev in 1989, winning the elections that followed, failed to provide a safety net for the vulnerable in the 1980's. Unemployment increased rapidly, life expectancy dropped in Russia, and the economy failed in the early years after 1980. A Marshall Plan like that offered to Germany could have helped but Gorbachev's failure may have been his failure to provide this transition by arranging for West Germany and the US to support a planned transition, a kind of Marshall Plan of Aid, and maintaining a gradual move to democracy as the country was given time to learn institutions of American and British parliamentary democracy. No such Marshall Plan was negotiated for a smooth transition over inevitable obstacles, no safeguards were put in place for illegal efforts to control the state by rogue elements and to seize assets of state companies, no efforts to first introduce limited elections and parliamentary processes for learning democratic process in Russia, and the people of Russia were left with a memory of the this period as a bad lawless period from 1989 to 2005.  Leading to the situation today under Putin of aspiring to the Soviet period as a kind of period that had offered Russia the world recognition it had lost. And this had happened even though the Russian economy had recovered and the standard of living had risen under Putin. Putin's career spanned the period as a Russian official in Dresden, Germany Democratic Republic or Soviet period East Germany to working in the St Petersburg City Council under Yeltsin. He personally witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the German Democratic Republic from Dresden and Gorbachev's refusal to build a transition period for the changes so that it would not be traumatic for the GDR. Even after reunification these traumas remain in some segments of the older population in East Germany that saw themselves as neglected and support extreme right wing parties in eastern German states by 2020- considering the Soviet period as one in which their lives were less neglected.  After three terms as president Putin with his own traumas from that period in Dresden, and with a mother lost in the period after the Nazi invasion of Russia, a father who survived the Battle of Stalingrad, saw the period of lawless behaviour in the collapse of the Soviet Union as the"greatest geopolitical disaster of the century."  Putin and people around him made missteps and miscalculations launching a war in Ukraine, leading to the situation today- jeopardizing hard won gains for the Russian economy. By 2022 Russian standards of living had risen and the economy was in the best shape it had been in the modern period since the Industrial Revolution. Yet largely exposed because of the dependence on oil and gas during a period of climate change and focus on building future economies free of fossil fuels.  Putin in his own peculiar logic may have seen this as the only opportunity in 2022 before deliinking from fossil fuel reduced the importance of the Russian fuel dependent economy to make some territorial readjusments in Ukraine with a quick war taking Kviv. That turned into a massive miscalculation with the emergence of nationalist fervor in western Ukraine spreading to the whole country of 40 million people. In the future to 2030 with phasing out of the fossil fuel economy, Russia without the connections to the US and European Union's technology and resources it had during Putin's three terms, and facing strict sanctions from US and EU, faces a difficult future. This has cautionary lessons for all countries- the US that read too much into the fall of the Berlin wall and indulged in a losing proposition with free markets that damaged its infrastructure and manufacturing with shifts to China, China understanding of how it to was dependent on the world economy for its future development, India that had to navigate a difficult period and what lessons to draw for building a bigger economy, the EU realizing the failure of its policies of depending on Russia for energy and China for manufacturing with fragile supply chains,  and Russia that there were twists and turns and the need for safeguards and experience building democratic processes before these processes would work for the economy, its people and for Russia as a nation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Administrative costs are one of the key reasons tution costs have increased to excessive proportions in the U.S., putting a heavy burden on the middle class, reducing social mobility that is an important aspect of postwar progress in Europe and the U.S. by putting college out of reach for millions of young people. This also creates a heavy debt burden for young people- U.S. student loan debt passed $1 trillion in 2012- who are less likely to buy a first home because of years needed to repay student loans. The market pressures to control costs do not exist in the same way as industries such as automobiles, because of the demand for college education in a modern globalized economy. Douglas Belkin and Scott Thurm have provided an indepth look at the University of Minnesota to show the spending surge and internal tendencies for faculty and bureaucracy to increase spending on hiring, building expansion to compete with other schools, and salaries to support their own within the college and university system, with a passive student community, and passive parent community, and lack of other outside pressures. Tution and fees for state residents doubled in the last decade at the University of Minnesota to $13,524. The figures tell the story- total debt with borrowing for building construction at U.S. 4 year public colleges tripled to $88 billion between 2002 and 2011, according to the Department of Education. Debt servicing costs doubled at the University of Minnesota to $106 million in that period. Minnesota's government provided $570 million for university operations in 2011, same as 2003-2004 school year even with inflation and 10% higher student enrollment. Yet analysis by the Department of Education and the Wall Street Journal shows in that period the spending increased disproportionately compared to inflation, student enrollment and teaching activity, with little restraint. WSJ analysis showed the University of Minnesota system added 1000 administrators between 2001-2011, with administration hires increasing 37%, double the increase in the students and double that of teachers. During that period the number of employees to manage people, programs and regulations went up 50% faster than the number of instructors, according to the Department of Education. Bureau of Labor Statistics cites this as the reason tution costs went up faster than health care costs. The 19,000 employee payroll at the University of Minnesota means one employee for three and half students. The new university president in 2011, Eric Kaler, interviewed by WSJ's Belkin and Thurm, says no one knew what it cost to run the school when he started....

LyrArc Article Gist
Women executives at a panel discussion sponsored by Columbia Universiy in New York, in Dec. 2014, provide ideas for getting more women in Tech fields. Ideas include, mentoring, with early education exposure to technology careers- as early as middle school. One executive says she takes in 150 female high school students to Washington D.C. for leadership training. Other ideas are to turn maternity leave into a positive feature of women's lives by letting women who do well keep their duties by delegating them to others while they are away, and making a smooth pathway back to work full time. The suggestion is to allow a gradual transition to ramp back up to full time work, and allow flexible hours, working from home. In daily work women are encouraged to look for partnerships with other areas of the organization for getting results, and being sensitive to which areas of the organization they need to build support in.

LyrArc Article Gist
Former U.S. president Bush says the U.S. has an important role as a beacon of freedom, human rights and democracy in the world. The U.S. should not shrink from the challenges in the name of a false and temporary stability, and flexibility should not mean ambiguity, difficulties should not mean shrugging away from America's role. Patience, creativity and active American leadership are needed. The Bush administration supported the struggles of people in central Europe and in other countries. This is from a speech Bush gave at the Bush Institute, Southern Methodist University in Dallas, a year into the Arab Spring. A speech that was giving voice to the aspirations of people in the Arab world.

LyrArc Article Gist
O'Malley, Sanders, and Clinton emphasize the issue of wages, income disparities, rising inequality, and a shrinking middle class in the first Democratic debate of the U.S. 2016 presidential election. Clinton points out that "at the center of my campaign is how we're going to raise wages." Sanders says that "the middle class of this country for the last 40 years has been disappearing." Clinton points out her opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement because it does not help raise American wages. Clinton calls herself a progressive, but "a progressive who gets things done," and a moderate when it comes to getting things done. Sanders points to the "deep injustice, an economic injustice that threatens to tear our country apart, and it will not solve itself." Sanders points to the wealth concentration in the U.S. "with the top one tenth of 1 percent owning about as much as the bottom 90 percent, and 57% of all new income going to the top 1 percent." Clinton comes to Sanders defense on the issue saying "it's our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn't run amok and doesn't cause the kind of inequities we're seeing in our economic system."...

LyrArc Article Gist
President Obama proposes changes in taxes to fund programs to aid students such as free 2 years of community college, aid for student loans, and financial help for middle class families. Senate Majority Leader McConnell says the proposals to raise income taxes for high income Americans with $320 billion in new revenues over 10 years, reduced prospects for changes in the tax system. He said the Obama proposals were designed " to excite the base but not designed to pass." Obama says "the shadow of crisis has passed," and calls for "middle class economics," and improving incomes for anyone making the effort. The call comes as inequality widened during the long recession and some of the Obama administration's policies such as on homeowner foreclosure, and lack of focus on unemployment during the first term, may have actually worsened inequality. The call also comes late in the second term in Jan 2015- with presidential elections in 2016- after the Republicans gain control of both Houses of Congress, which is why Republicans dismiss this as mere political talking points for the base....

LyrArc Article Gist
Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University, expert on debt crises, and author of "This Time is Different," says China is one of the best examples of the idea that this time is different, with the idea created that somehow China was impervious to the massive build up of debt. The debt is now over 250% of GDP, and this was possible for so long because of the high savings rate of 30% of disposable income and the millions of young migrants moving to cities to work in manufacturing. The growth of shadow banking, opaqueness in decisionmaking, unreliable data, use of local government financing vehicles, the bubble in housing with a large portion of loans tied to the real estate market, all combine to create serious problems that will take a long time to sort out. Rogoff says the crisis in Tianjin with the deadly explosions in the port area, and the government's inability to provide answers to questions from a alarmed public, only added to the uncertainty and loss of credibility. Rogoff says he hopes the trillions of dollars in reserves will provide China with the tools adequate to tackle the debt problems before they spread to other countries....

LyrArc Article Gist
A 93 year old hero of the French Resistance, Stephane Hessel, publishes a pamphlet called "Indignez-Vous!," released by a small publishing house from the publisher's home. He calls for resisting the "international dictatorship of the financial markets" and "defending the values of modern democracy." He protests France's treatment of illegal immigrants, the influence on the media by the affluent, cuts to the social safety net, French educational reforms. It was first published in October, and now has sold 1.5 million copies, all through word of mouth advertising. It has been translated into Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and Greek. New editions are planned for Slovenian, Korean, Japanese, Swedish and other languages. In Britain, it was published with the title "Time for Outrage." The pamphlet is about 4000 words and only 14 pages of text. Its timing is good, as the French are debating what to do in their politics with an election approaching and Sarkozy's standing at new lows. The short length and low price are a big plus, at $4 it made a convenient Christmas gift. Britain, Spain, Portugal and Greece are going through austerity cuts. Public sentiment has been aroused by the cuts, and by the overarching influence of financial markets on the economies of these countries. Some of these countries referred derisively as piigs- Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain -countries in the financial markets. The economic impact has fallen disproportionately on the young, with high jobless rate for young people from Italy to Spain, and cuts in funding for universities and schools in the UK also fall heavily on young people. A sense that something has gone wrong in the free market system and the western world. Austerity cuts in spending in the U.S. create a similiar feeling and joblessness among young people is also high in the U.S....

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Dec. 13, 2016, that it would increase its benchmark short term interest rate by 0.25 percentage point, to between 0.50% and 0.75%. The increase will also be reflected in business and household borrowing costs. The Fed also announced its intention to make 0.75% percentage point increase in 2017, possibly in 3 quarter percentage point moves. The Fed's forecast is for the fed-funds rate to reach 2.1% at the end of 2018, and 2.9% at the end of 2019. The Fed's policy is based on a sense of strong labor market with unemployment falling, and says it is based on discussion at a 2 day meeting, and "in view of realized and expected labor-market conditions and inflation." This reflects a view that there is now not that much slack in the labor market, that further improvements could trigger higher inflation. Fed forecasts for inflation are for it to increase from 1.5% in 2016 to 1.9% in 2017 and to the target of 2% in 2018. The unemployment rate of 4.6% in 2016 is forecast to go to 4.5% in 2017 and remain at that level till 2019. Economic growth is forecast at a median annual rate of 1.9% in 2016, 2.1% in 2017, only a slight improvement from last forecast in Sept. 2016. Support for chairwoman Yellen's policy decision was unanimous. See the link on views of NYT's Binyamin Applebaum and Neil Irwin on how Fed rate policy and economic growth under the Trump administration is likely to play out, and Ian Talley's report on impact on exports with a stronger dollar in WSJ. These views also are in line with the Fed's forecasts and policy decision as they reflect the concerns of the Fed about inflation, and also reflect the Fed's view that growth will be close to 2% in 2017-2019, and not the 3-4% stated by Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. Fed rate policies to keep inflation at about 2% tend to counter stimulus spending by the Trump administration and effect of tax cuts. The size of the stimulus and the tax cuts are also likely to be much smaller than stated because of Republican concerns about the deficit in the U.S. Congress, according to these views. The stronger dollar also has the paradoxical effect of making trade gains more difficult while increasing trade friction in tougher bargaining supported by Trump, making the higher growth targets harder to reach.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Automobile parts imports into the U.S. have increased from $89 billion in 2008 to $138 billion in 2014, up from only $31.7 billion in 1990. In a huge shift in wages with increasing global competition wages at an American Axle plant in Michigan at $10 an hour are about what Target stores and Wal-mart pay for retail workers. An new generation of workers in manufacturing are seeing a shift from being in the middle class during their parents generation to lower class, with this downward pressure on wages as parts are manufactured in places such as Mexico and China.

LyrArc Article Gist
Ian Talley provides this excellent account of how this drop in oil prices is likely to add to economic growth in major world economies, removing any ambiguity about the positive effect on the global economy. West Texas Intermediate crude dropped to about $65 from $105 between June and December 2014. The IMF estimates growth in 2015 will increase from 3.1% to 3.5% largely because of the lowering in energy costs. JP Morgan Chase economists see an addition of 0.7% points in global growth in the first half of 2015. ECB president Draghi sees the lower oil prices as an unambiguous positive. Estimates from Rhodium Group show major oil importing countries seeing import bills cut by $500 billion if prices remain low for 6-8 months, with $90 billion going into the U.S. economy. IMF estimate is that only 20% of the drop in oil prices is from lower demand, about 80% from higher fuel efficiency, increased supply using new technologies, decisions by OPEC to lower oil price, increases in supply. Based on estimates by the Rhodium Group, IEA and the IMF, the extra money flowing into the economies of the U.S., Asia and Western Europe from reduced oil import bills, as measured in percentage of GDP is: the U.S. 0.5%, Germany 0.8%, Japan 1.2%, China 0.8%, India 1.8%, South Korea 2.4%. Italy and France and other oil importing countries benefit. The impact comes at a time when Japan, China, India and eurozone economies badly needed a boost after significant slowdown in growth in 2014. It could not have come at a better time and because it is technologically driven as in the case of highly fuel efficient automobiles and new oil exploration technologies, a self sustaining process. The corresponding impact for oil exporters is: Russia -4.7%, Nigeria -5.4%, Venezuela -10.2%....

LyrArc Article Gist
As the Obama administration plans a large stimulus spending plan that may approach $1 trillion over several years, considering also the second phase of the $800 billion first phase stimulus, there is a concern that there may be wasteful spending and social costs of borrowing and spending by the government of such proportions. In economics jargon this hinges on whether there is amultiplier effect of spending, higher if its efficiently and well spent with less impact on private consumption and investment, and lower if the opposite were true. The assumption behind amultiplier of 1.0 for an additional bridge or road is that resources like manpower and capital that would be otherwise idle are deployed to produce something useful. An increase in one unit of government purchases increases by one unit the real gross domestic product. The government has effectively created the additional bridge or road without a cut in anybody's consumption or a businesses investment. The other contrasting approaches are to say there is a multiplier of zero, meaning there is a social cost in two ways. One the reduction of consumption and the crowding out of businesses investing in new products and technologies for example, and second in the inefficent use of resources if a government bureaucracy is put to work allocating money and the additional dangers of favoritism and corruption. To say that there is a multipier of 1.5 would mean that the government figures out a way to get private investment through conversion of plants for automotive parts say to make wind turbine blades by giving incentives, tax benefits and grants, spends on a dilapidated road and public transportation infrastructure that may provide benefits in increased growth capacity over future years. The limits of a government bureaucracy and inefficiency of government would in this case be addressed by transparency rules adopted and measures that track progress that are freely available to all citizens say on a website on the internet, and by bringing in fresh management talent from the private sector. There appears to be no generalization that can be applied for one multiplier for all projects. It may be that the multiplier will vary with the project. Some projects like the conversion of a factory making unneeded auto parts to a badly needed wind energy part, to change the dynamics of energy market pricing, to meet energy needs and cut emissions, may end up having a multiplier much above 1.0. A redundant or less needed bridge has a lower multiplier than a bridge rebuilt before it leads to breakdown. And also the complication that too large a movement in one direction say of stimulus spending, might result in a shift of the curve towards a smaller multiplier and diminishing returns, as the resources to track such a large expenditure and the talent to adminster are overextended. The social cost of private investment not making that investment in new technology, new product or improved product has to be figured into all this, both at the conceptual level as all costs and benefits may not be picked up in the analysis, and at the macro level keeping in mind that the animal spirits, as they were once described, may just not be there to absorb the huge outlays which a government can make. These do not come without an opportunity cost and borrowing costs. All this leads one to to conclude that spending has to be carefully evaluated and projects assessed on a case by case basis for costs and benefits. The spending has to be balanced to provide just as many incentives for private investment to invest in new products and technologies. One way the Obama team is attempting to address this is to include a $300 billion tax cut for businesses and individuals. The business tax cuts are aimed at helping small business with losses, and for future investments and making hires and forgoing layoffs. The other part relates to careful evaluation of spending projects and transparency so the people can see if they are effective. See the link to this....

LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...